League of Legends Wiki:Request for Adminship/Denevir
I thought becoming a mod would allow me to clean up everything. Turns out I'm still finding brick walls to jump over -_- -- Denevir (talk) 20:09, May 1, 2017 (UTC) : House is not going to clean itself, y'know? -- Denevir (talk) 20:09, May 1, 2017 (UTC) :: It would appear my intent is either unclear or is being understood as a coup, so here goes: you know when you find a red link and you want to fix it, only to find the 'edit' button isn't there, you type '?action=edit', and are met with 'you do not have permission to edit this page'? That's why I'm here. That's it. No 'new world order', no 'ethnic cleansing', no nothing: just a janitor that found a locked door under which some rats scuttled from, and wants to know what's going in that room. -- Denevir (talk) 20:09, May 1, 2017 (UTC) Questions * What more is it you want to do? What (walls) are limiting you still, even though you've received mod powers? ** Those ancient user talk pages and some message walls harbor redirects and red links I cannot get to, only admins. Ergo, I am forced to request admin rights in order to be as thorough as possible. -- Denevir (talk) 08:59, April 30, 2017 (UTC) * I'd have to talk to the other admins/crats but we used to have this system in place with other users where they had the admin rank but only were allowed (through trust, basically) to use the rights they needed to fulfill their role (usually code monkeys who needed it to edit mediawiki). Would such a thing be something you'd be interested in (having admin but only using the permissions you need to delete redirects/red links hidden behind old/archived pages)? 03:32, April 30, 2017 (UTC) ** That is the only purpose of this request: to edit what I cannot access at present. This option seems really nice (after all, some-I-will-not-name would rather raise more brick walls just to spite me) -- Denevir (talk) 08:59, April 30, 2017 (UTC) * Voting Support * Some people for god knows what reason don't seem to like the idea of giving a dedicated janitor the tools he requires. But I say give him a firearm if he deems shooting at the garbage more efficient than sweeping it. ** They seem to be scared I might drive-by the entire wiki or some shit, but the truth is it's not me who decided what goes away and what stays: that'd be Ninjamask. And I have no intention of betraying his trust. -- Denevir (talk) 10:27, April 30, 2017 (UTC) * So far he has been a respectible editor that had nothing but the best interests in heart for the wiki. Sometimes those best interests have made him clash with people who are not open to change, but overal he is a kind person (His relative behavior when it comes to rules is not anything different from anyone on the wiki, just depends on what ladder of power you sit on when it comes to interpretation of said rules). This wiki is in a desparate need to hold on to its best active editors as it can, and he has proven time and time again that he is more and capable of updating and putting new life to the wiki and its pages. I say give him a chance, a chance you rarely give to editors these days fow who knows what reasons. Also if he abuses his powers as an admin, everyone in the wiki needs to know about the situation so that all of us can judge what is the best course of action (not just a few admins with their own opinions). Only then when we reach a modest concensus can we actually take those rights from him, otherwise I see no reason not to try and open up to new possibilities. --Tesla Effect (talk) 12:10, April 30, 2017 (UTC) * Denevir still abides by the conditions placed when being stated as a moderator, which extends to his ability to be an administrator in my support. Although nothing has changed when he is applying for administrator now, I would highly recommend the application of what NeonSpotlight stated. As a moderator, it's fine for him to be given that title on his own. However, as an administrator, the restriction to only editing should ease some fears of what may occur when dealing with vandals. This is definitely a case where a whole new role should open up for an individual case. 18:08, May 1, 2017 (UTC) * Neutral * I find myself willing to put up Denevir for the position if he were to uphold the idea NeonSpotlight proposed: he will receive privileges, but he will not be considered as an admin and not use his power as such, as he remains as a mod. However, there are a few aspects as to why I neither support or oppose him here. Denevir is a dedicated individual who wants to get those "piece of trash" that may not always be trash out into the dumpster. He may let loose at time, causing rifts among other wikians who do not like him, but it does not change he places a lot of time into tidying up the wikia. However, that one wiki can be an issue, even when there is good intention. Us other admins need to keep him in check, and giving him more rights can be even more disturbing. There is also the fact that he hasn't been a mod for long; I believe even if there is effort, time should be taken before someone attempts to rise up the privileges. It is a drowning sensation that you need to follow procedures, but to avoid certain issues, time should be given. I understand others have had bitter experience when talking with Denevir, but I've found it that it is possible to come to a compromise even for individuals that seem to be rather selfish. Nonetheless, the time is not now to given him any higher privileges; if he needs access to items only admins can access, for the while he needs to ask favors to such admins. ** You really need to let go of speaking in walls of text, lest you run the risk of saying nothing at all. That aside, what 'procedures'? What 'philosophy'? Wait for someone else to do the things you don't want to do or don't give a fuck about doing even though no one else will? That someone is right here addressing you. No offense, but you can wait if you want. I'd rather DO. Words are gone with the wind. -- Denevir (talk) 08:59, April 30, 2017 (UTC) *** I would like to deliberate on how this wall of text is "nothing at all," but that is up to you to think as such. Even if be you are what could be the janitor of this wiki, I personally have had limited interaction with you. Regardless of the positive impression I have of you, I'm simply keeping to the "wait for two months before ranking up" mentality, which would be in about a few weeks. You can ask for trust, but as you can tell, some of us disagree with you, some of us agree, and those like myself are still on the fence due to our own reasons. * If the tools he want can't be given without the admin role, I guess I'm for Denevir, but the amount of power shouldn't be underestimated, thus will require a stronger surveillance from Bureaucrats, but Teh is and doesn't get along with Denevir at all... So I think it would be nice to reflect on the possibility that Ninjamask and NeonSpotlight would need to watch over Denevir. Also, I agree with the fact that Denevir was elected moderator not enough time ago to be considered as an administrator, and practically everything Green Moriyama said. Plus, the apply is pretty empty. Sincerly yours, . ** Ninjamask and I already have a partnership of sorts. I haven't interacted with NeonSpotlight much, but his proposal above sounds very nice (helps avoid any sensitivities getting hurt, if they do for whatever reason) -- Denevir (talk) 13:06, April 30, 2017 (UTC) * Oppose * To summarize my understanding of Denevir's wiki philosophy, "(1) Everything is shit, and (2) everything must go." These are not constructive principles for someone working to improve the wiki. Time and again, Denevir has taken it upon themselves to revise pages, gutting wide swathes of content in the name of housekeeping, deleting what they deemed to be a bunch of useless bytes. I do not believe that this zealous deletionist philosophy works to the benefit of the League of Legends Wiki. In interacting with other editors, Denevir values their own opinion on doing things high above those of others, existing procedural guidelines, and considerations for the end user (this one is literally why we're here, people). Denevir's self-righteous hostility regarding wiki hierarchy as witnessed in their introduction puts them at odds with myself and other editors, and will only continue to do so as they execute their personal crusade against the waste and excesses of the monarchy First and Second Estates bourgeois capitalists pretty much every editor who contributed to the page before them. Elevating them to administrator won't make disagreements just go away. For all of these reasons, I strongly oppose Denevir's nomination. 05:46, April 30, 2017 (UTC) ** Nice deliberate misinterpretation to make me seem like public enemy numero uno and paint you like the poor victim when the truth is anything but. Guess owning up is out of the question, then (in case you're willingly 'not sure what I'm talking about' again: are you really THAT threatened by a janitor pleb?) -- Denevir (talk) 08:59, April 30, 2017 (UTC) ***There are some points I disagree on with you, Teh. First, about the fact that Denevir would "values their own opinion", I think that you refer to the CDR page "argue" you had; personally I felt like you were enforcing your work method (putting everything that need changes into a text pile), which isn't suitable for Denevir, I guess he would prefer to improve, fix and replace, rather than starting from nothing or a text pile. And thus, the argue gone wrong and you both got angry. For the "Everything is shit, and everything must go." I sincerely think that it was said in anger, instead of lucidity. Plus, I also felt like you were more ordering the work than asking it, which probably triggered Denevir's angriness as well. For the other points, I don't know enough to argue nor to have a good opinion. Anyways, if you both aim for the completion of the wiki, you should try to get along, rather than clashing. Sincerely yours, . * I may seem to have relatively poor insight into the matter, but I think Denevir has showcased poor reactions to even neutral comments, and while having nothing personal against Denevir, I must argue against his promotion to admin. While Denevir seems to be otherwise fine, the sheer drive (and, as written above, lack of lucidity) I associate with Denevir means he's ultimately a poor fit for the position of admin, as admins need to be less opinionated and more able to communicate without entering some sort of outward conflict. --PS ** You're going to make the brick wall taller without having all the data at hand? Nothing personal either, but that's what's called 'being part of the problem': what you call 'poor reactions', 'lack of lucidity', 'opinionated', 'poor fit', etc (from 'poor insight' as you call it - your words, not mine) can be translated to 'it's always easier to get offended than to step up and own up' (I have a rule, you see: don't disrespect unless disrespected first - guess what happened?) We wouldn't be having this conversation if certain individuals understood 'X is Y because Z, alpha, beta, gamma, etc.' =/= 'X is Y because I say so'. In short, you're barking at the wrong tree. -- Denevir (talk) 22:13, April 30, 2017 (UTC) *** Remember what I was saying about wantonly entering outward conflict? Also, I did not disrespect you, so please don't bring that up. I'd rather see you as a janitor than one of the guys in charge, at least until you cool your jets a little. -- PS **** Don't worry, my jets are cool (wish I could say the same about others') I just want to do my housekeeping but I cannot because reasons (if there are any) which leads to where we are right now. The disrespect bit wasn't about you yourself (sorry for that misunderstanding) but I'm not sure where you're getting the 'conflict' part from. I'm just clarifying that passing judgement without having all the data is not only inefficient but also counterproductive. The ones in charge can stay there for all I care, I simply would like to stop running into locked doors. -- Denevir (talk) 09:12, May 1, 2017 (UTC) * Comments * I never have supported you for your attitude on this matter, Denevir. I merely support you for your ability. The truth of the matter is that your actions are unfounded. Your reasoning is too flexible for anyone to agree with. To be quite blunt, Denevir is the jerk of editing. Edit before stating reason. Insert dick before getting permission. You must have reasons for whatever you do. So if you do have reasons, you are obligated to list these reasons. Making up a reason for when the time comes is something a jerk would do. If you read the policies, you can clearly see Don't be a jerk under the discussion policy--which you can see is why I was harping on you last time. Stop being a little bitch and complaining when someone points out your faults when you obviously haven't even stated what exactly you are even doing. If you really think this isn't a problem, think of all of those confrontations with Tylobic. If you don't list your premises and logically reason out how they end up to your actions, you can expect everyone who confronts you to believe that you legitimately think that "(1) Everything is shit, and (2) everything must go." 18:44, May 1, 2017 (UTC) * First, just a quick question born out of observation and experience: if you already planned, calculated, and accounted for most (if not all) before editing, then edit, and in case someone gets offended, you explain why you did what you did, and they get offended and revert everything out of a temper tantrum even though your editing went in-depth and got rid of a bunch of artificial filling that was there only to... well... fill... who's the actual 'jerk' with 'unfounded actions' and 'on-the-fly reasons' then? Three words: abuse of authority (which I do not have) Second, "(1) Everything is shit, and (2) everything must go." is the product of what I call 'it's easier to get offended than to step up your game and own up'. I went out of way and spend many hours trying to come up with a way of merging cooldown and cooldown reduction (I totally got you meant this one) such that the most important info remains while getting rid of all the rest (the page is called 'cooldown reduction' not 'list of abilities with built-in CDR', after all) but someone got offended, called it 'gutting' (ha) and copypasted everything on top again. Who's the 'little bitch' then? A tip: that who doesn't care for the ACTUAL good of the wiki (neglect is the most obvious symptom of this) Third, if there is one 'fault' I might have, it's that I am way too efficient for some to process (hence the 'confrontations') and that I find 'opinions' and 'arguments' inefficient/counterproductive/non-profitable/worthless (2 + 2 = 4 is not negotiable, neither are the laws of physics / nature) My methods are less 'insert dick before getting permission' and more like 'dear god, so many cobwebs, let's get the duster' (never found it curious how I seem to be one of the few - if not the only one - whose actions are questioned at every turn even though the end result turned out to be the objectively superior alternative?) -- Denevir (talk) 20:09, May 1, 2017 (UTC) **(Clap clap) Bravo, for making your point on a single instance. However do you also know what is not negotiable? The laws of logic, which oh hot damn comes from speech and ARGUMENTS. That kind of "easier to get offended, than to own up and get better" mentality is the one that people who favor pollution have than people who are trying to clean up the shit. It's a shame because that's the entire premise of your cause. **:What you think is useless is actually the very thing you need to break these walls: a strong sense of organization. The strongest form of this organization is something called deductive reasoning. The usage of premises and implications to prove a conclusion. This form of reasoning is non-negotiable to the level that literally all of the laws of physics/nature and even 2 + 2 = 4 is based on this deductive reasoning. Here is an example of a criteria you could make for your changes: "This section refers to material no longer in the game. If something refers to material no longer in the game, it is obsolete. This section is something, therefore this section is obsolete." From there you can make your actions based on what is obsolete and it cannot be argued so long as your premises are true. **:This is the very logic that is used that keeps theorems together and if you refer people to these criterias you made for your changes, then literally nobody can argue with you so long as they cannot argue that your criteria is false. I wasn't even talking about the CDR incident, because why think in instances when you can deal with what can happen for all cases? 20:42, May 1, 2017 (UTC) *** Right, you mean 'argument' as in 'X suspected of being Y, let's find out'. I meant 'argument' as in '"A: X is Y because I say so" "B: No, X is Z because I say so (insert dick sizing contest)' It's the latter that's inefficient/counterproductive/non-profitable/worthless and pollutes everything it touches (adulterating evidence to push an agenda as an example) The former is the basis of any research. Surely you can tell you the difference between the two? Or even where getting permission to get permission to get permission, etc., etc., falls into? ****First off thanks for adding more context. I kind of imagined it was like this which is why I support you still. Here is what I am implying: The former argument form can significantly reduce or even completely remove the latter argument form. If you create a set of criteria that explains why you make your changes that is thoroughly permeated with sound and valid deductive reasoning, you can use it to completely close out the latter form of an argument. I know it gets to a level where an edit war can occur, but in your criteria you can even display what can be considered vandalism. This would allow you to appropriately deal with cases where people are being uncooperative. I know you like to use logic and reasoning over anything, but come on now. You must already know that the most important part of logic and reasoning is foundation. 21:25, May 1, 2017 (UTC) Closing Statement * Category:Active rights requests